My daughter is taking a human sexuality class and she said that couples who have only had sex with each other tend to grow apart because of their lack of sexual experience. At least that what sex therapists say is the leading cause of problems in young couples. That and money issues. That's probably not relevent, but I thought it was kind of interesting. :shrug:
I hope not. Both my partner and i have only had sex with eachotherPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! of corse we have been living together for almost 5 years now and we are happy
My boyfriend and I are "shacking up" is it? I think its great because I want to be with him, but I'm not ready for marriage I'm way to selfish, but I think its helping work out my own character flaws while still being close to my boyfriend. Weddings are soooo expensive.
A child doesn't give a shit whether his parents are happy or fulfilled! Your logic is out of date. It's been shown that it is much better for the children if both parents are present, even if they are unhappy. Ancient logic. Bunk. Women still are the ones who get pregnant. They still are the primary care givers. They miss the most work because of kids and, as a result, make less money. So? Most women are going to get pregnant and have kids. Remember that sex you were saying women like so much earlier? There's a connection. Given that women are going to get knocked up and need to take some time off work, they'd be better off with a man around to help. Now, if they get married, they have the many protections marriage offers women. Or they can just keep fuckin random guys and abort all the babies, or go on welfare, or put the kids in the loving hands of a daycare worker earning minimum wage. Anythings better than that ancient "marriage" deal!
I think it's interesting that you view "all" of the benefits(of marriage) with regards to men as sex. I'm curious to what measures I can take when I'm being deprived of my benefits. Can I withhold their financial security? Can we settle on a contracted amount of sex so that I do not get jipped?
I was exaggerating a bit for emphasis. You also get the benefit of your children not being bastards, certain tax advantages, etc. Now that's something that should be in a pre-nup! Great idea! PS You've been a member since 2006, and that was your 15th post! You're never going to catch up to SAM at that rate.
Thanks for the clarification Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!(Hey, I'm sure some people actually hold that viewpoint!) And I hope that I do not disappoint, but my post volume will never reach SAM's. (I'm more of a reader anyways)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
[women that is] Note: the children are hers. The man is never in danger, in this way, of having his children be bastards - through the miracle of indifference.
Excerpts from "The Logic of Life" -- why in modern world marriage is rationally less desirable than in the past, and divorce is more desirable than in the past: http://www.slate.com/id/2182089/entry/2182090 http://www.slate.com/id/2182089/entry/2182091
No, it has not been shown. There was a much hyped study that showed children of divorced parents fare better than children of two-parent families. But the study was not comparing right things. What it SHOULD have compared is children of divorced parents vs. children of parents who were always at each other's throats, yet stayed together "for the sake of children" (or for who knows what). I bet the divorce children are better off. As a child in the latter situation, my life was hell, and I am certain I would have been better off if my parents divorced when I was in high school. BTW, they did divorce few months ago, at the age of 61 (both). Should have happened at least 20 years ago.
Children are much better off when their parents are happy whether they are married or not. A divorce does cause an upset more so in older children, but while having your parents split hurts it doesn't hurt as much as watching a parent who is miserable from their unfulfilled marriage or constant bickering,fighting, and yelling between parents who are supposed to love each other
You're just trying to rationalize doing what you want to do. All that's required for the children's benefit is that the parents act like adults and at least be polite to each other in the children's presence. And the data most definitely supports the idea that divorce or single parent families damages children: ยท A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded,
Just becuase your parents are married and happy doesn't mean your child is happy or fulfilled. My parents were and are happily married, but my dad worked so often that I rarely saw him and it made me really angery as a child and teenager and it still makes me mad now. But it probably doesn't matter how you raise your kid as long as you raise them well regardless of your living situation.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I don't know about others but I married my wife because it was a way for me to affirm that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, through good times and bad times, when things were going well and when things were not going so well. Sure, as two adults we could have simply lived together but that presupposed a certain lack of committment. It is like saying, "I will live with you now but I don't want to formalize it just in case I want to leave at some future date." It is a sort of lets fuck until we get tired of each other deal. I don't think my wife has ever regretted our getting married and I know I haven't. Even when we are angry with each other we still know that marrying each other was the right thing.
Thats not a very nice thing to say.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's not how I feel at all. I just don't want to get married until I know I'm mature enough to handle a life long commitment like that. Besides weddings cost a lot of money and my bills are lot less now than they were when we weren't living together.
My father was the one who stayed home with me when I was little. Even then, he had to put up with a lot of comments from both family, friends and complete strangers. Because it was deemed to be the woman's role to be the caregiver. And some people still see it that way. For example: Ancient logic. Bunk. Women still are the ones who get pregnant. They still are the primary care givers. They miss the most work because of kids and, as a result, make less money. madanthonywayne It's that little thing called financial independence. There are other reasons such as time away from home in adult company. My sister-in-law could not wait to go back to work. By the time her first child was 6 months old, she put him in daycare and was off to work. She found it utterly boring to stay at home with the baby. It has its moments. Actually being there to see a child's milestones is wonderful, I must admit. Funnily enough, we are more tired at home with the kids than when we were working full time. Yes it is. But I think it is not the quantity of time but the quality of time with children that actually does matter the most. Just being home is not enough. Parents who actively play and interact with their children, even if it is for just 2 hours or less a day, do benefit their children when compared to parents who are home all day and do not have much interaction or play with them at all. As I said before, it was my father who stayed home with me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But the argument is one-sided in many respects. The mother is expected to be the one to stay home with the children. For example, when I had my first child, I had joined a mother's group. One day, sick with the flu, my husband was the one who took our son to his playgroup. The reaction of the other mothers there was quite amusing. They told my husband 'how novel' that he was the one taking our son instead of me. Comments were also made that their husbands would never be caught dead in a mother's playgroup because looking after the kids is 'women's work'. I understand my husband laughed at her and told her that both parents are just that, parents and both should do what was necessary for their children. It doesn't? Have you asked the child? I have known many couples who have been terribly unhappy in the marriage/relationship and who have stayed together purely for the children. As a result, the couples as well as their children have all been unhappy and the majority of the children, dysfunctional as they have grown up. You don't think father's are equally the caregivers for their children? You don't think father's are able to care for their children as equally as the mother can? Firstly, marriage does not always offer any protection. Secondly, many single mothers are more than capable of caring for their children without a 'man' to take care of them. You are looking at women who have pre-marital sex as being those who simply "fucking around" and getting knocked up and then aborting their children or going onto welfare. Some do, yes, but many do not. As for the random guys she may be "fuckin", why does he not play more of a role in the child's life? Yes madant. Couples who are unhappy in their relationship and stay together simply for the sake of the children are always polite and nice to each other. Seriously dude, don't be so naive. The data says nothing at all about children brought up by both parents in an unhappy and sometimes abusive (verbal and/or physical) household. Well said.
